Effects of active and cold-water immersion recovery strategies on perceived well-being and physical readiness: a crossover study conducted after small-sided soccer games

Abstract

PurposeThe study investigated the effect of active recovery (AR) and cold-water immersion (CWI) recovery strategies on the speed of recovery after small-sided games (SSGs) in soccer players.MethodsA crossover design was employed to divide 24 male soccer players from a first division Iranian National League (age: 22.3 ± 2.6 years) into 4 experimental conditions: active-active, active-CWI, CWI-active, and CWI-CWI. Heart rate (HR) variations (standard deviation of normal R-R intervals [SDNN], log-transformed root mean square of successive R-R intervals [lnRMSSD]) and self-reported indices (Hooper questionnaire and rate of perceived exertion [RPE]) were measured. Twenty-four hours after SSGs, the players performed one of the recovery strategies. Forty-eight hours after the session, they completed a 20-m sprint test; changes were compared with baseline.ResultsA significant difference in SDNN HR variations between AR and CWI recovery strategies (<i>F</i> = 4.86, <i>p</i> = 0.03, ƞ<sup>2</sup> = 0.31) was noted. Regarding within-experimental condition changes (<i>F</i> = 60.82, <i>p</i> = 0.001, ƞ<sup>2</sup> = 0.85), significant differences were detected when comparing data recorded before SSGs and immediately after SSGs (<i>p</i> = 0.001), as well as for data recorded before SSGs and immediately after recovery (<i>p</i> = 0.001). There was also a significant difference in lnRMSSD HR variations when AR and CWI were compared (<i>F</i> = 2.41, <i>p</i> = 0.033, ƞ<sup>2</sup> = 0.29). Within-experimental condition changes (<i>F</i> = 127.9, <i>p</i> = 0.001, ƞ<sup>2</sup> = 0.74) indicated significant differences between data recorded before SSGs and immediately after SSGs (<i>p</i> = 0.001), as well as between data recorded before SSGs and immediately after recovery (<i>p</i> = 0.001). No significant difference was found between the SDNN index of HR variability for different recoveries (<i>p</i> = 0.055, ƞ<sup>2</sup> = 0.07). Moreover, no significant differences were noted between recovery strategies in terms of Hooper index (<i>p</i> = 0.832, ƞ<sup>2</sup> = 0.11), RPE (<i>p</i> = 0.41, ƞ<sup>2</sup> = 0.06), or 20-m sprint test (<i>p</i> = 0.78, ƞ<sup>2</sup> = 0.02).ConclusionsCWI showed a greater effect than AR in restoring the impaired vagal-related HR variability indices observed immediately after SSGs. However, no advantage was observed between the recovery strategies.